Policy makes the fundamental difference regarding how countries are able to take
advantage of the technical opportunities available to them and exploit them for good. The issues of sustainability of good policies and a progressive process for evolving policy are therefore of paramount importance. ICT Integration in education is a complex process and all education stakeholders require clear guidance as to what is expected of them throughout this process. Namibia’s ICT Policy for Education that has lead to the creation of an implementation strategy, in turn lead to the first step towards providing such guidance to countries like India who are on the making of purposeful ICT Policy for Education.
ICT can light up learning, empower communities, and unlock social development. It can reach to the remotest areas, the most
challenged education systems and make transformative advancements on a national scale. But it can only work such wonder to the
extent that it is predicated on end-to-end policy. Otherwise it is fragmented and lacking creating schools with expensive equipment but no technical support, or content without connectivity, trained teachers but no infrastructure. Or it is unequal and limited coverage in certain regions, others going without. Poor planning defeats the potential of ICTs before they are even applied to real life situations.
The decisive issue in ICT in education then is good policy. India and Namibia, the world apart, vastly different in terms of scale and population density have in common that they are both countries embarked on the making of end-to-end ICT policy for education. As India draws up its national framework document, and embarks on a course of formulating comprehensive ICT in education policy, it is worth noting some of the lessons and guiding principles of the Namibian experience – gleaned from its own process of national
ICT policy making.
Namibia’s ICT Policy for Education has lead to the creation of an implementation strategy and this in turn lead to the development of a framework for implementation and engagement. Currently, the ICT and Education Policy Steering Committee, with over 70 members, represents nearly all directorates within the Ministry of Education, as well as a wide-range of private sector, civil society, and donor partners. The steering committee is supported at the day-to-day level through the Ministry of Education’s Project Management Office for ICTs in Education. The Project Management Office assists the steering committee’s Working Groups, which are organised around each component of the framework for implementation. More and more, the Working Groups are becoming the decision making bodies of the Steering Committee, with each working group making recommendations for their areas of expertise and the Steering Committee reviewing these recommendations for endorsement. Here the head of the steering committee, Alfred IIukena, with Todd Malone shares secrets of Namibia’s policy success.
 Implementing National ICTs in education policy: The Namibian case
At the turn of the millennium, national information and communication technologies (ICTs) in education projects or organisations could not be found in Namibia. Within three years, nearly a dozen projects and organisations had begun to pilot ICT-related activities. These included ICT deployments, curriculum development, content deliver, teacher training, educational management, technical support, and connectivity. During these early days, projects and organisations operated independently, as islands of activities and interventions.
Project managers and organisations could attempt to align ICT activities to the Ministry of Education’s overall education goals, but little guidance was available regarding the actual form of implementation for ICTs in education. Technology platforms varied dramatically from one school to the next. ICT-related curricula were virtually non-existent. ICT-based content, if available, was haphazard and almost wholly imported.
Training programmes were developed based on trial and error. And affordable connectivity and technical support for ICTs was no where to be seen. As these islands of activity increased, the Ministry of Education was unable to ensure that the
projects and organisations were working in line with the Ministry’s educational goals.
While the scene described may appear unfortunate, on the contrary, the use of ICTs in education in Namibia was extremely new and these projects and organisations began to form a collective set of local experiences, highlighting what
worked and what didn’t. Eventually, Ministry officials, ICT project mangers, and NGO leaders, came together to share experiences and coordinate the ICTs in education sector. Thus, the ICT and Education Steering Committee was formed.
Currently, the ICTs in education sector in Namibia exists as a multifaceted environment with a number of different players. Each stakeholder, based on their mandate, applies pressure to the Ministry of Education and the Ministry, in turn, responds by applying pressure back on the sector. With the development of the ICT Policy for education and the comprehensive implementation plan, the ICTs in education sector in Namibia has a consistent forum to work together and engage all public, private, and civil society partners
Around the same time the
Ministry decided to update their ICT Policy for Education. As one of their first tasks, undertook to update the ICT Policy for Education to reflect the comprehensive nature and opportunities presented through the use of ICTs in education.
After nearly a year and half of discussion and input from sector partners, the ICT Policy for
Education was completed and launched. The policy, while simply a document, represented the development of a medium for
exchange and debate. The Steering Committee, by leading the policy creation process, became the forum
for all things ICT in the education sector. This policy development process evolved from a revision of
the existing policy into a strategy for sector-wide educational change through the integration of ICTs for teacher training, classroom
learning, and educational management. As this process took shape, a framework for engagement for all partners, and thus a framework for change, emerged.
ICTs in education: Implementation and engagement
 A comprehensive framework for implementation must consider a wide-range of factors, stakeholders, and approaches. Based on the wide-range of experiences in Namibia, the ICT and Education Steering Committee began working with the Global eSchools and Communities Initiative in early 2005 and, slowly, an implementation framework began to emerge.
The resulting framework for implementation, which forms the basis of the Ministry’s implementation plan for ICTs, consists of nine key components. These are: (1) educational objectives, (2) project management, (3) infrastructure readiness and platform deployment, (4) curriculum development, (5) content availability, (6) training and usage support, (7) educational management, (8) maintenance and technical support, and (9) monitoring and evaluation. Each component is described in the Ministry of Education’s Implementation
Plan Guide for ICTs in Education
as follows :
At the centre of the entire process are the Educational Objectives, which must drive the whole initiative. These are then followed by Leadership, to be provided by the Ministry of Education, and the development of a Project Management Office that oversees the day-to-day management of the initiative. Next are the actual components of the ICTs in education initiative (Deployment, Curriculum Development, Content Availability, Training and Usage Support, Educational Management, and Maintenance and Technical Support). These are the activities that must be implemented at the educational institution level. Finally, enveloping the entire process must be a comprehensive Monitoring and Evaluation process.
The framework highlights key issues which must be addressed for successful implementation. Physical infrastructure must be in place in the form of power, buildings, and, ideally, telecommunications. Appropriate curriculum must be in place for basic ICT literacy skills, for the integration of ICTs across subject areas, and for ICT as a subject in itself (e.g. computer science). Content must also be available to support the delivery of each of these curricular areas. Training programmes must be implemented to address the ways in which the curricula and content are to be implemented. Educational management at school, district, and national level must be aligned and implemented for the ready exchange of information for planning purposes. All hardware, software, and personnel must be appropriately supported through centralised and on-site support. And all of this must be monitored and evaluated regularly to make suitable adjustments.
The framework is meant to reflect a comprehensive solution for implementation of ICTs across the education sector. One additional benefit of utilising this framework is that, based on the comprehensive nature of the solution, the framework doubles as a “framework for engagement” for all partners to critically influence the ways in which ICTs are introduced and utilised for the education sector.
By focusing on actions instead of institutions, the framework can be used at all levels as implementation plans are debated, drawn up, and executed. For instance, central policy makers and planners can employ the framework to consider high-level educational objectives for the sector, such as “improving maths results for girl learners” or “improving attrition rates”. These are sector-wide educational objectives which then drive the deployment of ICTs, development of curricula, etc. At another level, each educational institution can determine their specific educational objectives and then develop various components of their institutional implementation plans.The framework of engagement ensures that everyone at all levels considers the full implications and requirements for the implementation of ICTs.
An example: Project management and leadership
The implementation framework, in serving as a framework for engagement, creates competing demands on organisations within the ICTs in education sector. Currently, the ICTs in education sector in Namibia exists as a multifaceted environment with a number of different players. Each stakeholder, based on their mandate, applies pressure to the Ministry of Education and the Ministry, in turn, responds by applying pressure back on the sector. The framework helps guide that pressure such that roles and responsibilities are clearly defined. In the past, the pressure generally originated from outside organisations and often the Ministry took some time before responding due to the uncertainty of partners’ roles. More recently, this has shifted whereby outside organisations make demands on the Ministry and/or the Ministry makes demands on organisations.
For instance, the ICT and Education Steering Committee determined that the ICT solution deployed to schools must include educational content for use by teachers with learners. The educational content was expected to cover at least maths, science, and English for grades 8-12, since these were deemed priority areas. The Steering Committee tasked their Content Working Group to evaluate educational content packages.
The Working Group in turn looked to National Institute for Educational Development (NIED), which is the Ministry’s curriculum and professional development
directorate and thus responsible for content evaluation. The working group also requested assistance from the Global eSchools and Communities Initiative to assist with the development of an e-content evaluation tool since NIED had little experience with the evaluation of digital content.
GeSCI developed the tool in close collaboration with the Working Group and NIED. The tool was then reviewed by the Steering Committee, with extensive input from members who regularly work with content, curriculum, and/or training. After the evaluation tool was revised, the Working Group identified subject area specialists from NIED to conduct the e-content evaluation.
The team evaluated content which was recommended by Steering Committee members for use in schools. Once the evaluation was completed, the results were
compiled by the Working Group
and shared with the Steering Committee. The Steering Committee reviewed and endorsed the results of the evaluation. And in the end, a collection of e-content packages was identified for inclusion with all educational deployments.
This example, as presented here, looks rather straight-forward. In actual fact, it was a messy, contentious process which continually required the leadership and support of the Ministry of Education. The Ministry, as the head of the Steering Committee, continually pushed NIED to ensure the review moved forward. GeSCI was reminded to ensure that a wide-section of stakeholders reviewed the evaluation tool. Steering Committee members had to be asked repeatedly for recommendations for content packages. And, in turn, Steering Committee members from NGOs and other training organisations pushed the Ministry to ensure the evaluation was transparent and consistent. It was no easy feat. But in the end, the results of the evaluation were such that the Steering Committee was confident that they could stand by their endorsement.
Conclusion
Namibia began with competing visions for the ways in which ICTs should be utilised for educational change. It can be argued that a unified vision continues to elude the sector. But, given that educational change happens in myriad, competing ways, it is likely that the “messy, contentious” nature of the ICTs in education sector in Namibia is an asset since the framework for implementation and engagement provides the unifying theme for the sector.
Overall, the ICTs in education sector in Namibia has moved from donor-driven projects to a Ministry-led, sector-wide initiative. Going forward, the Ministry and the Steering Committee must continue to bring in additional partners to ensure all targets can be met. For example, connectivity can only be expanded in an equitable, affordable manner by aggregating demand across all educational institutions and thus the telecommunications providers must be brought on board.
With the development of the ICT Policy for education and the compre-hensive implementation plan, the ICTs in education sector in Namibia has a consistent forum to work together and engage all public, private, and civil society partners. Given the wide range of views for the sector, this is no easy task. This, in turn, ensures that in the ICTs in education sector in Namibia, all partners are connected to one another and, more importantly, there are no more islands.
A full version of the article appears at www.gesci.org 
|
